Tag: It Seems to Me

The Synoptic Problem

by Bob Beanblossom

31 January 2017

It seems to me that, as Christians, we are sometimes troubled and even overwhelmed by what scholars and authorities have to say about the Bible. One part of the problem is that we read far more about the Bible than we do the Bible itself. Another part of the problem is that many scholars and experts are not Christians, but secularists. Just as being a Christian comes only from an experience and relationship with our Savior, understanding of His Word. This is an important fact that is often disregarded by even Christians: “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Ephesians 4:17-18). The paper below is a little different, but I trust that you will find it interesting. It addresses differences in the texts of the first three Gospels, first identified as a “problem” in the late eighteenth century–in other words, from the earliest times of Christianity, Christians recognized that there is no “problem.” See what you think–after reading the Gospels for your self.

The Synoptic Problem

The NT books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are called the Synoptic Gospels1 because of striking similarities in the content, the language, and the timeline covered by all three. Within the similarities, however, each presents the Gospel, or God’s Good News, in a uniquely individual way that perplexes scholars who deny divine inspiration and would have them to be rubber stamp clones of their own creation rather than separate books written to separate audiences under the auspices of the infinite God. Conservative biblical scholars have for many years compiled comparative lists of the Gospels with titles such as the “Practical Harmony of the Four Gospels” as did Joseph Muenscher, who, in 1828, described his efforts as intended to furnish English readers at a small expense with a Harmony of the Four Gospels adapted entirely to (be of) practical purposes. . . The fact that more than two hundred Harmonies of the Gospels have been written . . . since the middle of the second century proves that their importance and advantages have been duly appreciated.2

 Liberal scholars, on the other hand, have also compiled detailed lists in Greek and English of the similarities and divergences, spending inordinate amounts of time on the study of the “problems” created with perceived disagreements, presenting varied opinions about those problems: their causes, and resultant impact on Christianity. Bart Ehrman, a respected biblical scholar, after noting that the Synoptics “tell many of the same stories,” with a note of perplexity continues: “they often do so using the very same words.”3 Apparently somewhat daunted by this two thousand year old problem, he continues: “This phenomenon is virtually inexplicable unless the stories are derived from a common literary source”.4 This is obviously enigmatic to those who will not believe that the God of creation is the Source of biblical inspiration, since the miraculous, in their opinion, cannot exist. These variations are known as The Synoptic Problem.

In some three and a half years of preaching, assuming 12-hour days, Jesus filled over 15 thousand hours with some sort of activities. Clearly, the Scriptures are not the moment-by-moment account of His life that we have grown used to with the profusion of videography, professional reporting, and social media rampant today. One aspect of this extreme coverage that we too often overlook is that even these reports, when presented, differ substantially with the perspective of the reporting agency. During the last election cycle and into this Administration we have heard a lot about media bias, that is, reporting from a perspective to create an opinion, not simply present facts. We have even noted substantial differences in content in current reporting in different editions of the same media. Ehrman, to his credit, also notes, “consider a modern-day parallel. You have no doubt noticed that when newspapers, magazines, and books all describe the same event, they do so differently.”5 We should not be surprised to find both similarities and differences in the Synoptics.

Another factor is the phenomena of personal or individual eyewitness reporting. The open-and-close crime programming on television often presents a wonderfully uniform case that establishes the guilt or innocence of the accused in a half-hour with twenty minutes of commercials. There are some exceptions that do a fair job of relating more realistic situations of honest witnesses reporting widely divergent testimony. Even unretouched video taken of an incident from different locations can present what appears to be conflicting information.  In fact, investigators are immediately alerted to testimony that is too conforming, that is, missing natural variations, which upon scrutiny, proves contrived. Whether a victim or witness, student, or scholar, we all come to every situation with bias. Often we are unaware of it. When we are, if honest, we admit that our predispositions are impossible to fully overcome. It is who we are, what our worldview is. Our understanding of Jesus is colored by whether we are Protestant or Catholic, Muslim or Christian, atheist or one who has experienced the saving power of the Holy Spirit. Differences in perspective are natural and should be expected.

The honest, scholarly study of our Bible can be useful to the Christian layman. Christians should be comfortable that the books of the canon are, in fact, ordained by God, as are the very words, and therefore, the message. Scholarship at its best can only present a human view of that Divine creation that is every bit as miraculous and unique as its subject: the WORD (see John 1:1-2 KJV). H.C. Thiesson described a quandary faced by secular biblical scholars: “there seems to be no early attempt to deal with the literary problems presented by the Synoptics”6 As Muencher noted so many years ago, Christians saw the Word as the Source, not the object, in the search for their personal God. The best human attempts to create a god of the intellect are doomed to failure: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (1 Cor 1:19).

These considerations might be termed the Human Problem, factors that cause the apparent Synoptic Problem. With so many hours of ministry, there is a strong possibility that Jesus preached and taught the same or very similar messages several, if not many, times with variations, to address the needs of each particular crowd, thus adding to the possibilities of permutations and combinations of reporting as disciples and the curious told and re-told what they had heard. Every disciple did not hear every word of our Lord, as Jesus retired to pray (Mark 1:36 KJV) or as they were dispatched to take of various tasks (Matt 10:5). Outcomes of miracles were “as reported” since the recipients were often sent away to discover the results of their faith in Jesus’ abilities. Differences in reporting of the type we see are indications of authentic testimony as any law enforcement investigator would acknowledge.

There is some agreement that the Synoptics are written to different target audiences:  Matthew to the Jews; Mark to the Romans; and Luke to the Greeks. This alone provides a clue that the material presented, even if of identical incidents, might well be stated differently. Each divinely inspired writer would present his material in such a way as to provide the best witness to that target audience, and at the same time, give future Christians leadership and inspiration. I strongly suspect that the papers we write for this course are different than what we might post on the social media on similar topics.

Lastly, for our purposes, is bias. Scholars sometimes seem to develop hypotheses with more vision than fact. Given the thousands of hours of Jesus’ ministry, repeated messages, oral combinations and permutations over time, lack of “unbiased” professional reporters or scribes to record every word, and authors writing to target audiences as inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is neither surprising nor disturbing that there are differences in the Synoptics. Since we have no autographs, we must use other means to determine the quality of extant manuscripts, keeping those proven consistent and discarding the rest as canon. These methods uphold the Scripture, the canon, and the inspiration of the Word preserved and continuously used for over two thousand years as the very Word of God. The efficacy of the Word attests its authenticity as does the persistence of its form. There is no Synoptic Problem and no threat to His inspired Word. For those who persist in a conviction that there is a Synoptic Problem, Kostenberger, et al., reminds us that, “one’s view on this issue should not be taken as a test of orthodoxy, especially since the available evidence does not allow for a definitive resolution of all of the issues involved.”7 David Alan Black, et al., concludes, “It must be said that scholarship, like all earthly endeavors, runs in fads, especially in the post-Enlightenment setting. Scholars are essentially Athenians at heart, always searching for some new thing (Acts 17:21)”8

____________________

1 Andreas J. Kostenberger, Scott L. Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2016), 205.

2  Joseph Muencher, Practical Harmony of the Four Gospels, Arranged According to the Most Approved Harmonies (NY: Elisha Turner, Publisher, 1828), i.

3 Bart D. Erhman, The New Testament; A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writing, 2nd ed., (NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), 76.

4 Ibid., 77.

5Ibid.

6 H.C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943), 102.

7 Kostenberger, 175.

8 David Alan Black, and David R. Beck, ed., Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: 2001), 150.

 

Bibliography

 Black, David Alan, and David R. Beck, ed. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: 2001, 150.

Erhman, Bart D. The New Testament; A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. NY: Oxford University Press 2000, 76-77.

Kostenberger, Andreas J., Scott L. Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2016, 175, 205.

Muencher, Joseph. Practical Harmony of the Four Gospels, Arranged According to the Most Approved Harmonies. NY: Elisha Turner, Publisher, 1828, i.

Thiessen, H. C. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1943, 102.

Activist or Christian

by Bob Beanblossom

12 January 2017

It seems to me that we are sometimes too quick to hang labels on people. Trained as we are by short sound bites and carefully crafted factoids of information, we fail to look for depth and breadth, to discern truth. In the simplistic labeling of folks, we miss the depth and breadth of existence in a real world. We only see caricatures of real people. Fredrick Douglass is an example. An escaped slave, political reformer, and devout Christian, his detractors and supporters generally saw him only through the distorted lenses of their own prejudices.

M.P. Aymer, in his book First Pure, Then Peaceable: Fredrick Douglass Reads James [LNTS 379 (London, T&T Clark, 2008)], wrote that Mr. Douglass left his Christianity behind when he became an abolitionist in the years before the Civil War. His misinformation influenced many people to believe that Douglass had forsaken a disinterested God. As in many disagreements in the Christian world, slave holders held that Scripture supported slavery, while abolitionists believed that God’s Word supported their position. Religion had become a tool of man instead of an experience with God. How often have we seen opposing sports teams, armies, and others at odds with each other call upon God to honor their particular cause–in lieu of seeking His blessings upon their pursuit of His will.

Digging down through the distortions to the to the facts, we find that Douglass said, “Do you declare that a thing is bad because it has been misused, abused, and made a bad use of? Do you throw it away on that account? No! You press it to your bosom all the more closely; you read it all the more diligently; and prove from its pages that it is on the side of liberty–not on the side of slavery  (F. Douglass, “The American Constitution and the Slave,” in G.T. Thompson and F. Douglass, Constitution of the United States [London Emancipation Committee: Tract No. 5 (London, 1860)].

Douglass held James 3:17 as foundational: But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Rather than abandoning his faith, Douglass embraced it the more, sharing this verse in at least five speeches before the war.

Today we are still in the throes of an election past as an unsettled and emotional America (and world) see lines in the sand, black and white strife, and me-you challenges in everything; in all that our political leaders–incoming and outgoing–say and do. Labels are attached on minimal or fabricated information. Proof of false information is unheeded as the planted hate grows profusely. The distorted past is more important than the future, and the present is the battleground.

Christians, mandated to exemplify God on earth, ignore commands such as: But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness . . . (Matthew 6:33), and:  I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:1-2).

Or, this: I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks. be made for all men; for kings (or Presidents), and for all that are in authority (such as those in Congress, the courts, law enforcement and so on); that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior ( Timothy 2:1-3).

The real Douglass should be an inspiration to each of us, and an example to: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The question is not whether we are activists or Christians, but are we Christian activists, following His lead, serving His will.  As Paul acknowledged in the Ephesians passage above, we are to be servants or even slaves to His will. This is a difficult concept for the self-sufficient American mindset, but the authority is far above ego. It is the will of our Creator.

Evolution of Carbon

From the New Scientist of October 2016

With Comments by Bob Beanblossom

10 January 2017

It seems to me that we need to keep up with science a little bit better if we are to understand the facts of Creation vs. evolution.  Here’s an example, excerpted from the October 22 New Scientist with my comments:

“Carbon is essential to life. Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists aren’t sure how it came to be. Given the known rules of nucleosynthesis in which atoms behave like billiard balls, carbon synthesis (Bob’s note: the formation of carbon in a big bang type of event) stalls at the formation of beryllium 8, a necessary intermediary. The theory fails in simulations, since the process can’t be tested.

“Superconductor simulations have recently shown that trios of helium nuclei can enter a resonance that lets them stay together long enough to decay into carbon 12.” As an aside, this resonance requires an almost simultaneous presence in an exact configuration of the helium nuclei. In the totality of the Universe, these particles all have to find one another simultaneously in great quantities.

Great—science solved the problem!  Sort of. With this rather important condition: the simulation  states that the reaction is possible, but only at temperatures of 100 million degrees, a condition only assumed to exist in the heart of certain stars (Red Giants). Now that’s some serious global warming. Red Giants are theorized to possibly occur in the later stages of a star’s life according to current theory, but not possible in the timeframe of a big bang. To tie it to our own sun, after a few billion years of existence to get where we are now, our sun might become a Red Giant in another 5 billion years. The Big Bangers and Evolutions can’t have the ultra-short timeframes theorized for the formation of the elements (20 minutes after the start for the light elements) and the billions of years required for evolution to form life from Carbon and other elements some 3.5 billion years ago, or 1.1 million years after Earth formed.

The theoretical problem that this creates is monumental. How do you get Carbon formed in these Red Giants in their old age distributed throughout the universe? The very existence of this element in relative uniformity and massive quantities throughout the universe makes this an important question for the theoretical thinkers. These implications will not, of course, change the way that the Big Bang or evolution are taught, even as various facets of these theories have been proven untenable.

Apparently, our evolutionary ancestors did not keep very good notes, because this is only theory, computer simulations. No proof exists, or can exist. Back to the drawing board for the advocates of evolution.

To put the importance of Carbon in perspective, it is the 15th most abundant element (by mass) in the crust of Earth (the top layer that we live on), and the 4th most abundant element in the universe according to current calculations. We are familiar with its forms such as diamonds, coal, pencil ‘lead’, and Carbon Dioxide (coming to the forefront in Global Warming discussions from the natural processes called the Carbon Cycle).  More importantly for us is the fact that it is an essential part of all life forms. It is the second most abundant element in humans, comprising about 18.5% of body mass.

The data on Carbon are facts as known at this moment by science, not opinion. They are subject to revision as the state of science progresses. The application of those facts are opinion, taking the form of scientific theories where the Scientific Method can be applied, and philosophy where the ideas are beyond the parameters of the Scientific Method that requires replication, etc. The Big Bang and Evolution, since they are not replicable or testable, are philosophy. While often cited as science, they do not meet the standard tests of the Scientific Method.

So we can go with the Big Bangers who would create Carbon in the early stages of the Big Bang in stars at the end of their lifecycles (a bit of a dichotomy) in the quantities available throughout the Universe and needed on Earth for all life. Or we might consider a more plausible answer:

“In the beginning God created . . .” (Genesis 1:1)

New Year’s Thoughts

It seems to me that we are in that time of year when we think of the past and consider the future, perhaps more than at any other time of the year.  Some of us have been known to make New Year’s Resolutions–those promises to ourselves that often do not endure beyond the first day of the year.  But, our intentions were good.

I pray that, as you look back, you find occasion for rejoicing in the year that was. Sometimes it takes a bit of effort to get past some of the more sobering events–deaths of loved ones, family, health, and job issues, the sad state of our nation.

Paul was no stranger to suffering: “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in peril of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness” (2 Corinthians 2: 24-27). Not to mention imprisonments and, ultimately, execution. Most of us have not had most of those problems.

He wasn’t alone, of course: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9). Notice that He suffered for every man, not just all men. And women. Each of us was the cause of His suffering, and each of us who accept His gift of salvation through grace will benefit individually from that sacrifice. So, Paul, the great apostle, suffered tremendously. Jesus suffered becoming human and dying for our sins. You and I suffer in this life, both the saved and unsaved alike. What’s the point?

Here is a thought: “I am come that they (each of us) might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). Salvation does not take us out of the world, or give us some sort of utopian life in this world. God calls us into His service as warriors, servants, and even slaves, according to Paul. The reward is an eternity with Him, but there is a more present benefit that we need to cultivate, for it is always available to the believer. It is a life of abundant joy. “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony or our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation (our life) in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Corinthians1:12).

I can only hit the highlights of that powerful verse:

Our outlook, our mood, is ours to choose. The more we stand on our own wisdom, the more we are affected by the world around us. The more we center our lives and thoughts on ourselves, the less satisfied we are. As a profitable exercise, do a word study in your Bible on JOY. It is a verb. It is not an emotion. We will be sad, tired, angry, happy, and all the other human emotions as events impact us. But the JOY given by the grace of God is without limit except for our failure to allow God to take control.

Our testimony and our conscience are strongly linked, and are expressed more by our actions than our words. They are either driven by our own ego, or as we grow in our relationship with God, by His manifestation through us.

The complexities of life (and the resultant frustrations due to family, relational and health problems) are often our own doing. We place ourselves in marginal situations. We are stress-driven. We get involved in too much. We don’t take time for fellowship with God through Bible study and prayer. We set our own priorities, instead of seeking His, and following the path He reveals. If your relational time with God is equivalent to one commercial on TV, you may be missing out on His message for you. He works on His schedule. His eternal clock has no hands on the dial.

Putting it all together,  we depend upon our own wisdom instead of trusting God. We say we believe in Him as the Creator of all and the Savior of our souls, yet betray our insincerity by not trusting Him with our own lives.

The solution is not easy. We have to yield our egocentric ‘my way’ and, instead, trust Him, do our best to learn what He expects of us as unique individuals, and seek the leadership and power of the Holy Spirit in following His path, we center ourselves in the center of his grace, and have lives that are more satisfying and productive.

So, I will not have any resolutions this year except for this: to draw ever closer to my Savior through prayer and Bible study,  endeavoring through His grace to serve Him more perfectly as He leads.

I pray that as you do the same–not in the same way, not on the same path, but as He leads–that the problems of the world will be dimmed by the JOY of the grace of God.

 

 

Once in Infinity

By Bob Beanblossom

19 December 2016

 

Once, in the limitless infinity that surrounds God, the Divine Council met to finalize plans for Creation. All members of the WORD were present: God the Father presiding, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The meeting reflected the spiritual nature of those holding the meeting: it was infinite in its expanse, unbounded by walls, buildings, or even the Universe, for matter, energy, time, and space as we understand them did not yet exist.

Plans were all but complete. Creation was almost ready for “In the beginning God.” Even with the timeless infinitude of the Three-in-One, this was a momentous decision. If approved, a set of finite material things would be created from nothingness and added to the infinite somethingness of the spiritual realm.

God the Father looked with concern at God the Son—He who existed throughout eternity, but was soon to become Jesus, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Messiah, the Christ—the Lamb Slain from the Foundation of the World. God the Father said, ‘Son, We have discussed Creation thoroughly. We will create Man in Our image to be holy, to worship and serve Us, and to care for Earth, that part of Creation that We will give them. We will create them as finite creatures, with material existence in a material world that has both a beginning and an end. They—man and woman–will become living beings at conception and be eternal from that point onward. We will always be present in their world and in their lives. They will be free moral agents, independent in thought and action, capable of deviating from Our Will. When they leave the realm of human life We will reward their obedience with eternity in Our home. We will call it Heaven. We know that they will sin, almost from the very start, even though I walk daily with them, and talk with them, and have fellowship with them. Satan, that fallen angel and adversary, will be an agent of evil, but rebellion will be the conscious choice each man. We will call that rebellion Sin. This is certainly neither welcomed nor approved, but is expected. Sin must have a penalty. That penalty will be an eternity away from Us. Sin cannot enter into our home. We will call the place of that punishment Hell. But, We will prepare for that fall from our grace and establish a process to allow man’s restoration. We will call that act of restoration Salvation. Our continual presence will be masked from them by their sin. But, We will always be there for each and every one who calls on Our Name. We will call that Prayer.’

‘We will select one lineage to call Our Chosen People. They are not special or remarkable in any way, except that I have chosen them to send Our message of salvation to the rest of the world. They will have cycles of righteousness and sin just as individuals do. The re-introduction of Our Will to mankind through them will be progressive. Sin will radically diminish their ability to understand Us and apply Our will to their lives. In fact, it will be impossible. When they fail beyond all measure, I will move Our presence to a new people, chosen from all peoples in all lands.’

‘Son, this is my big concern. Maybe we should throw this whole plan out and start all over again, with beings who will choose to worship and serve us. Sin cannot be accepted. No man will be capable of becoming righteous by Our standard. The whole lot will never be allowed into our presence because of their rebellious hearts. The only acceptable solution is the sacrifice of a perfect man to atone for their sin. There will never be a sinless man among them. Never.’

‘You have volunteered to become that sacrifice, to leave our home, become one of them in body, live and die among them. Son, I am proud beyond measure of the love that you show for those not yet created, but is it worth the cost? We can easily create a race similar to the angels who will worship and adore us, who will serve us and exalt each other. We have no mandate to create a being who will fail so miserably.’

God the Son spoke: ‘Father, Thy will be done. My offer stands to become the perfect sacrifice for all mankind. I will be born among them, walk and teach among them, be rejected by them, and die for them. Your love for me is the perfect example that I must follow. We will teach them Your ways. We will offer My salvation to every man. When I return home, We will send them God the Holy Spirit to live among and within them and guide and protect them. Those who accept my offer of salvation—for accept it each one must to receive the benefits I offer to all—will become part of the Family of God, the Bride of the Lamb, My Bride, the church. We will celebrate eternally as I receive them from the confines of a fallen world.’

And God said, “Let there be . . . and it was so . . .”

Christmas Present

By Bob Beanblossom

12 December 2016

It seems to me that, as we quickly approach Christmas, we would do well to stop, take a breath, and think about what Christmas is all about.

The last few months of electioneering–and continuing through today–have been strongly contentious. Everyone knows best and all others are a variety of epithets that are anything but considerate.

With the We-They thing in full force, we might ask, “Who did Jesus come and die for?” Some might emphatically answer, “Not for them!”

Do you remember what the angel said to the shepherds on the night He was born?

Most of us can quote the first part: “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy . . .” We sure could use some joy today, couldn’t we? Did you know that the joy is still where the angel said it was to be found–exclusively and certainly in Jesus Christ.

Back to our subject. The angel didn’t seem to be a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. He was “just” the messenger of the most high God.

He finished like this: ” . . . which shall be to all people” (Luke 2:10).  Not just the folks who agree with you, who go to your church, who speak your language, and all the other We-They distinctions we can come up with.

Which takes us directly to the Great Commission. Jesus commanded us to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations . . .” (Matthew 28:19a). Elsewhere, He tells us to start at home and work our way out to the rest of the world.

“All people.”  “All nations.” “Go ye.” Sounds like this might be a bit more important than politics, the next big game (there’s always a next big game), or anything else that ties us up in knots. Stuff that gets us so upset that we compromise our witness.

If Jesus could suffer the cross and keep His witness, and fulfill his earthly mission, without sidetracks and compromises (and He did), shouldn’t we consider Him our example and try to follow His lead?

It isn’t easy. in fact, we can’t do it on our own. But, remember what He promised: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20b). We will succeed with His help, and still fail sometimes as we loosen our grip on Him occasionally. He has made provisions for that, too. As a Christian, the Holy Spirit is always a part of us, even when we ignore Him. Prayer is the link that only we can break.

This Christmas, try getting alone with your Bible and God for a little R & R.  I suspect you will find it time well spent.  It might even get to be a habit.

The Angry Man

Attributed to John Hornsby (jhornsby@wplus.net)
5 December 2016

For all the interest group pandering that shapes modern American politics, the group that may well have decided the election has come down to the demographic of “The Angry Man.”

The Angry Man is difficult to stereotype. He comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America , from sophisticated urbanite to rural redneck, Deep South to Yankee North, Left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

 No matter where he’s from, Angry Men share many common traits; they aren’t asking for anything from anyone other than the promise to be able to make their own way on a level playing field. In many cases, they are independent businessmen and employ several people. They pay more than their share of taxes and they work hard. Damn hard, for what they have and intend to keep.
He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the Christmas party for the employees at his company, three sets of braces, college educations or a beautiful wedding or two. Not because he was forced to, but because it’s the right thing to do.
The Angry Man believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written. It is not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of appointed judges and political winds.
The Angry Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun and use it in defense of his home, his country and his family. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone if necessary to achieve those goals gives him only momentary pause.
The Angry Man is not, and never will be, a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina. He got his people together and got the hell out. Then, he went back in to rescue those who needed help or were too stupid to help themselves in the first place. He was selfless in this, just as often a civilian as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter. Victimhood syndrome buzzwords; “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” don’t resonate with The Angry Man. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him.
His last name, his race and his religion don’t matter. His ancestry might be Italian, English, African, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, Russian, Hispanic or any of a hundred others. What does matter is that he considers himself in every way to be an American. He is proud of this country and thinks that if you aren’t, you are whole-heartedly encouraged to find one that suits you and move there.
The Angry Man is usually a man’s man. The kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, go hunting, play golf, maintain his own vehicles and build things. He coaches kid’s baseball, soccer and football and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, design a factory or work the land. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant so that you can keep the lights on while never knowing everything it took to do that. The Angry Man is the backbone of this country.
He’s not racist, but is truly disappointed and annoyed, when people exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their ethnicity. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they’re willing to work hard and play by the rules. He expects other people to do the same. Above all, he has integrity in everything he does.
The Angry Man votes, and he loathes the dysfunction now rampant in government. It’s the victim groups being pandered to and the “poor me” attitude that they represent. The inability of politicians to give a straight answer to an honest question. The tax dollars that are given to people who simply don’t want to do anything for themselves. The fact that, because of very real consequences, he must stay within a budget but for some obscure reason the government he finances doesn’t. Mostly, it’s the blatantly arrogant attitude displayed implying that we are too stupid to run our own lives and only people in government are smart enough to do that.
The Angry Man has reached his limit. When a social justice agitator goes on TV, leading some rally for Black Lives Matter, safe spaces or other such nonsense, he may bite his tongue but, he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
But when government officials are repeatedly caught red-handed breaking the law and getting off scot-free, The Angry Man balls-up his fists and readies himself for the coming fight. He knows that this fight, will be a live or die situation, so he prepares fully. Make no mistake, this is a fight in which he is not willing to lose and he will never give up.Obama calls him a Clinger
Hillary Calls him Deplorable
Bill calls him Redneck
BLM calls him a Racist
Feminists calls him Sexist
ISIS calls him an Infidel
Donald Trump calls him an American

United States of Self-Interest

By Bob Beanblossom

22 November 2016

It seems to me that we are failing as a nation because we have stopped acting like a nation. Early Americans were individualists who were strongly community-oriented. That is why our Constitution has limits on federal powers.  Over the years we have changed from this position of self-will and self-support to the belief that the government is the source, the custodian of power, wisdom, and support.  The backlash we see from the latest election shows a variation of the original theme. With half of the voters holding to the liberal stance and the other half claiming a conservative position, the distinction falters if one digs a little below the surface.

There is little difference between the majority of liberals and conservatives at the fundamental level:  Both have forsaken the unity, cohesiveness, and a desire for the common good that our forefathers had. We have adopted a decidedly egocentric lifestyle. It is Me first, Me last, and Me in between. The chosen path to the exalted Me decides the liberal/conservative tag, not the motive. We have become the “I’ll do it my way” nation. We not only expect, but demand, that our preferences be met at any expense. Vitriolic posts on social media, violent demonstrations, and murder for the most superfluous excuses all point to this Me-ism.

As incoming Mr. Trump makes conciliatory speeches and reaches across dividing lines to establish his cabinet, outgoing Mr. Obama encourages the demonstrators (as he did throughout his administration) and threatens repercussions if his ‘legacy’ is dismantled–no matter what the will of his ‘subjects.’ As a prime example of this Me-ism mindset, Mr. Obama has never understood that the world is not in lock step with him. It is inconceivable to him that anyone, let alone almost everyone (an exaggeration, I know, but I am illustrating) is out of step with him. He is not the problem, just an example of the symptom. This is not to suggest that Mr. Trump is perfect. But then, neither am I, nor are you.

If egocentricity (Me-ism) at the expense of the common good is the problem, what is the solution?  The first step is for each of us to examine our own motives. Forget the grand sounding platitudes. Look at attitudes as expressed in behavior: How do I act, What do I do when I have a choice, and What doo I not do when I have the same choice. Our choices range on a continuum from extreme self-interest to altruism, or a sense of community.

Attitudes are ours. We need to get over the nonsense that we are victims of our ‘situations,’ that we are formed by our ‘environment.’  Of course, these are factors in our lives, but are not prime determinants. I would suggest that our relationship with our God is a major factor. At this point, I would also state that atheists who lean towards humanism are also quite capable of productive participation in this type of self-evaluation, and in community.

Consider this:  When we join or support an organization that we identify with, a club, a sports team, a church, we to some extent mold our lifestyle to that organization. Our language, attire, and feelings are, to the extent that we identify with that group, a reflection of the values of the organization.  We do not support all aspects of the group and its behavior, but adapt as warranted because of our support.

We are part of a group. It is called The United States of America. Some of us were born here. Some of us immigrated because of the perceived values and benefits. It is constantly changing, but–until recently–has at the same time been remarkably consistent to its founding values and practices. Americans throughout our history have disagreed on many topics, but were always Americans, first and last.

Today we revel in tags and hyphens. We are not Americans, we are this-American or that-American, we identify by our sexual behavior (why?), or whatever the current term is for our religious or political beliefs. We have decided not to be Americans. Our legal practice and social mores reflect this group-ism. We breed harmful discrimination in the name of non-discrimination.

The solution is simple, but possibly not obtainable: We must consciously move up that continuum from personal interest toward community. That requires suppressing some of the Me-ism in favor of the group. It requires consensus–not sacrificing ideals, but making sure that our ideals are firmly grounded and not just personal preferences. Sometimes we have to back down on a point to make incremental improvements. Here is where teamwork comes into play. If you strongly believe in a position, sell it, educate others to it; demanding your way is not the solution–it doesn’t work on you, does it?

Another important question is, ‘Why would I want to do this?’  More specifically, why would I give up my all-American stand-on-my-own-two-feet-I-know-better-than-you-do position to be put into a position where I might have to compromise with someone who doesn’t believe like I do? Someone who doesn’t think like I do, dress and groom like I do, smell like I do, isn’t as ‘smart’ as I am?

Survival. Survival of our nation. Survival of our children and grand children. I am a bit amused by the gun folks who have a dozen guns–one for every contingency, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and have expressed the notion that they are ready to take on all comers. Really.  Ready to take on highly armed and trained teams with armor and vehicles, and power to observe and deliver that is (obviously) beyond the comprehension of the rugged individualist. That is not heroism, it is suicide, and an abdication of responsibility to persevere and overcome injustice and oppression. I am pro-Second Amendment, so let’s not go there. The discussion is about why I should be willing to be a team player instead of a frail and vulnerable super-hero. Even Superman had his kryptonite.

As poet John Donne expressed in the 1600s, “No man is an island. No man stands alone. Each man’s joy is joy to me; each man’s grief is my own.”  If we expect our children and grandchildren to have any significant quality of life in a safe, nurturing environment, we need to recreate that environment in our nation. We need to return to a sense of neighborhood, where we (not Government) support each other, where we work for what we need and want, where respect is foundational and not a discussion item.

We have that ability.  We are diverse. The Bible, paraphrased rather broadly, says of us: “Some are fingers, some are toes, some will even be a nose.” In other words, we complement each others skills and interests: we are a team. A football team of eleven star quarterbacks would not get far. A quarterback without a supporting line would be useless. We are each valuable as contributing parts of the whole. We in turn support those who are not able to contribute. Offence without defense is a lost game.

The rule of law prevails. Homicide is homicide. If the law states that homicide rates the death penalty, it should be equitably applied no matter what the victim’s race, rank, profession, or age. If we don’t like the law, there are legitimate ways to change it. You may have to build consensus. Teach, train, exhort, and expound. But do not demand. Again, the latter doesn’t work on you; why should it work for you?

Let me wrap this up. There are too many avenues to explore–but, that’s what you are for. Here it is, in Paul’s words: “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called (for this discussion, being a productive American citizen), with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:1-3) Not bad advise. Difficult for our big egos, but good advise.

It takes two things to accomplish: 1) My will, my desire, to unite America, and 2) My ability to do it.  The last may require a little help from God to achieve. Try Him. If he requires a particular behavior, He will give you the ability to do it–on His terms. 

Humility

By Bob Beanblossom

15 November 2016

It seems to me that we have a basic misunderstanding about what humility means.  We had an interesting pair of questions posited in Sunday School recently that got me thinking and considering what the Word had to say about humility. For this discussion, I will use the words humility and humble interchangeably.

These are the questions: 1) People who exhibit humility don’t know they have it. How do the rest of us become humble?, and 2) People who say, “In my humble opinion,” are seldom humble.  Let’s look at those, and a bit more.

Language is a powerful and abused gift of God.  Words today are being hijacked to mean something different while sounding like something else. For instance, 100 years ago gay meant happy and carefree.  Today it signifies a male homosexual.  Quite a change.  Another is marriage. God instituted marriage as a unique inseparable bond when he created woman to complete man: marriage was established as the inexplicable union of one man and one woman. It was the framework in which to procreate the race and raise offspring in a safe and nurturing environment. This understanding was universal in all societies, in all times. Man has abused and distorted that concept over the years, but the definition has not changed.  Today, the term gay marriage or equivalent is accepted in ‘enlightened’ societies for a legally sanctioned relationship between two individuals of the same-sex. That is an oxymoron, a combination of words that doesn’t fit together. The meaning is meaningless.

Stability in language is a primary reason that I prefer the King James Bible. I accept that there have been advances in Hebrew and Greek scholarship since 1611 when it was translated, and that additional manuscripts have been discovered, both of the canon and as historical adjuncts. I don’t ignore them. But, to me, the stability of the language in King James provides a benchmark for study. I can go to the original languages if I find a confusing word or phrase. They, too, are stable. I can deal with thee and thou, and even Britishizing coinage, calling a shekel a penny. (We do know that the 1611 language and some format was updated in 1769–very few of us use, or would recognize, the original). But, I don’t get bogged down in comparing versions and paraphrases, remembering when each was written so that I can linguistically place each in a contextual timeframe of changing ‘written for today’ language and environment in order to understand them as intended. The advances are not worth the setbacks for me.

The point is, that words should have relatively stable meanings. I know the world is changing rapidly, but if we don’t have a stable language, communication is impossible. Meanings do change over time, but the process should not be intended to foster an intentional deception.

Now, let’s look at the first question: what is humility, the act of being humble, and how do we get it–or do we even want it?  Foremost for Christians is that we understand that humility is not a man-made characteristic, not a personality trait, but a gift of God. Our perfect example was Jesus. He exhibited humility throughout His ministry. As you consider that statement, you might question my competence to write on this subject. The first thing that comes to mind is Jesus making a whip, overturning tables, and violently running the money lenders and sellers of sacrificial animals out of the temple. But at that moment in history as throughout his life on this earth, he was exhibiting humility. We will get two lessons from this event.

Our first lesson is that humility is not introverted, mousey behavior. The expression of humility is situational. I’ll explain in the second lesson.

The next, and most important lesson about what humility is, is that all humility is of God; it is a gift of God; it reflects the righteousness of God, not the goodness of man.

We looked at Jesus clearing commerce from the sacred precincts of God’s temple. Let’s look at Jesus when the woman taken in adultery was brought to Him (John 8:1-11). Jesus talked about the evils of adultery some 18 times in the New Testament. Yet when the spiritual leaders brought this woman to Jesus, He stooped down and wrote in the sand.  When they persisted, He quietly charged them to stone her as the law provided–with the proviso that the one who threw the first stone must be without sin. Her accusers melted away, and Jesus dealt with her sin. He did not argue, did not call the wrath of God down upon the adulteress or her equally sinful accusers.  He exhibited great humility as He stooped down and let them vent.  He appeared passive, but was, in fact, in charge of the whole event, the event that led to the salvation of a lost soul.

These are, perhaps, the two extremes of Jesus humble behavior until we approach the cross. We have to remember who Jesus was: John said He was the WORD, eternally existing, that He was with God, and, in fact, was God (John 1:1-2).  The writer of Hebrews said, “He made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:2b).

Jesus is the Son of God, Himself the Creator, yet one with God the Father. His humility was seen every time He prayed: Jesus always sought God’s will through prayer throughout His earthly ministry. In the garden before He was arrested, he “prayed, saying O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, Thy will be done” (Matthew 26:42). God the Son, with the greatest humility, accepted the will of God the Father to go forward to the torture and death to come in order to accomplish the will of His Father: the plan of salvation for lost man.

Throughout His trial, torture and crucifixion, He meekly took the abuse of the religious and political leaders without a murmur in order that God’s perfect will be achieved for our salvation. During the trial His silence was overwhelming. He did respond when the governor “asked Him, saying, ‘Art thou the King of the Jews?’ And Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou Sayest’ ” (Matthew 27:11-12). This is God the Son’s humility, Jesus’ example for us.

In spite of an intensely cruel government, Jesus ignored the political situation and concentrated on presenting the Gospel to lost man. On one occasion where His enemies again sought to trap Him, they asked if it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar. Jesus asked for a shekel, held it up for their inspection, and answered, ” ‘Whose is this image and superscription?’ And they said unto Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And Jesus answering said unto them, ‘Render to Caesar all things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’ “ (Mark 12:14b-17a). The lesson in our context is this: Humility is of God, and is granted to us to serve Him in His way, in His time, and in His place.  For guidance, He has provided us with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Following is a decision we make individually and continually.

Humility is not something of man, nor is it something that we don’t know we have. Humility is the gift of God that allows us to be the Christian he wants us to be in a world that is sin-sick and hostile. It is a manifestation of His grace to each of us as Christians. It is a tool He uses through us to achieve His will. It is a characteristic of Christ that increases in us as we allow the Holy Spirit to work in us. There are markers:  A Christian who consistently tells us what “I” have done, where “I” have been, and who “I” have talked to, may be missing the mark; the Christian who regularly tells us of the grace of God and the leadership of the Holy Spirit in their lives, is probably growing in this all important characteristic. Personal pronouns are scarce in their vocabulary. It is a growing process.

Let me not ignore the secular side of this. There are humble individuals in the world. They are caring, empathetic, and altruistic. Just remember, it is a gift of God, and it is not mousey, self-effacing behavior.  It is far more than humanistic altruism that seeks to ‘make the world better.’ It is the essence of the Christian lifestyle as we endeavor to live more like our Savior in subservience to God the Father, and in service to our calling, that “vocation wherewith ye are called” according to Paul in Ephesians 4:1 through the power (alone) of the Holy Spirit.

“And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even His Son  Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life” (1 John 5:20)

Humility is the bright spot on the horizon.  It is the light of Jesus Christ in our world today, and a pointer to that time when we will live in the presence of the source of all light.